Dean doesn't want the job. He already did his time as chairman.

He liked being Chair.

Afraid that your side might start losing again to real Democrats? The progressive side has always been the real Democrats, not the third way or DLC side. They have moved too far to the right.

It's time to end this charade and put the trust of the Democrats back to its proper place - the progressives. They know what works, and what does not work.

They have voiced out that the tax cuts that * made has created a major problem with one and a third of unnecessary wars and created a massive deficit with no revenue to cover for it. The attitude of "I've got mine, so fuck off" has to end right now and think about the middle class who are being shoved to poverty by no fault of their own, but by the 1%'ers.

Progressives are a minority within a minority. The nation self identifies as right center when given the choice of conservative, moderate, or liberal, and have done so for decades. This, even though on an issue by issue basis the nation would be best descried as left of center.

You are not going to change a damned thing pushing an ideologically pure progressive agenda in the Democratic Party. You simply must compromise with moderates or you will never ever get anything close to what you want and will, in fact, help push the agenda to the right.

This is how politics has worked in the Democratic Party since McGovern and it won't change any time soon. It will take at least two decades of those who truly hold progressive values easing the rest of the party to where it needs to go before you will ever see a progressive majority in the Democratic Party.

You do this one piece of an issue at a time. It is a long slog and will take a long time to get there.

Demanding ideological purity, especially at a time when the demands for far rightwing ideological purity are tearing apart the GOP, will doom this nation to an even more rightwing agenda. It took a long time for liberal to become a bad word. It's taken less time to paint "progressive" negatively. Because of the negativity associated with the labels, you have to push at the policy level issue by issue on the long haul.

So it's up to progressives. You either have the patience to do it right or you simply tear it all apart in 2012. It's your choice. I've made mine. You take the fast road, but I will take the longer, less traveled road to insure my stances are eventually adopted.

I am extremely liberal.

I am also pragmatic and understand that politics is the art of compromise.

Since they aren't, time to play the hardest of hardball.

He doesn't get it.

-p

... and when you ask them about issues instead of labels they come down pretty far left.


You're not a liberal or a progressive. You're a sucker that's fallen for the "most of the Country's conservative" meme coming from the right's media machine.

Highly recommend you find another place to spew your misinformation.



http://www.truth-out.org/poll-finds-progressive-most-positively-viewed-political-label-america/1325261212

Hardly a "minority within a minority".

"You take the fast road, but I will take the longer, less traveled road to insure my stances are eventually adopted."

You're on the WRONG ROAD, the rest of us are already there.

Call us when you get close.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus

The progressive caucus comprises 75 total members, with one being a Senator.

By any accounting you wish to use, that is a minority within a minority.

Math is our friend.

They are the majority caucus in the Democratic House.

75 is just over 39% of 190 and 190 is just under 44% of 435.

The universal truth of mathematics proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Progressive caucus is a minority of a minority.

I don't think the good doctor would come back.

WTF!!!does Debbie have

of "strategic states".

That fails. Big.

I'm not letting it happen. We make our own strategy to win the state for Obama, no matter how undesirable he is, but he's what we've got.

threw Dean under the bus after the yell that wasn't a yell at all? Now we're on the verge of an oligarchy, and everyone is calling for The Good Doctor to swoop in and save the country. LoL. Upset about Wisconsin? Boo hoo. How is that Obama's fault? Walker NEVER dipped below 50% during the whole time of the uprising. That should have told you all something right off the bat: Wisconsin is Red - not batshit crazy Red, but moderately, independently Red, the type of people who can find fault in public sector collective bargaining but also vote for Obama. Had Obama or the DNC descended on Wisconsin in full force, Wisconsin would be lost. The President is playing chess while you all are playing checkers.

Dean isn't coming back. He created and implemented a 50 state strategy even after being thrown to the wolves by his own people, and again all his hard work and authentic sincerity was given the cold shoulder. Why bother?

Take it somewhere else.

when they act exactly like the morans on the Right.

Bye

Its obviously a subject you are intimately familiar with. Go troll somewhere else already.

I can't believe you wrote that with a straight face.

You should check the DU Wiki, you'd see the proper phrase is "The President is playing 12-dimension Chess while you're trying to figure out how to set up tiddlywinks".

I'm frustrated that Wassermann-Schultz took all of Howard's great work and threw it in the shitter in favour of her retread DLC "strategy". WTF?

and threw it in the shitter. But DWS isn't any better.

Dean's 50 state strategy was perfect for 2006 when resentment against the GOP was high. Part of that strategy was reaching out to moderate Republicans. Wassermann-Schultz setting up camp in Wisconsin and taking a very Left position would have flown in the face of Dean's model. The DNC and Obama did the right thing in staying out. The key word here is MODERATES, and Wisconsin is full of them, hence Obama's lead.

It's deeply divided with few in the middle.

boy, don't you know nothing? Forget it you'll never figure it out

I feel like I'm on a FOX blog now.

it won't fly here. and I doubt you will either.

Illogical emotional outbursts are common on the Right blogs.

If I was his opponent, I'd kick the board and tell him to man up and work for the people, as they chose Obama to represent the people.

in the Democratic leadership. Wisconsin is simply a sign and symptom that things are not working. First, we got blown out in 2010, now this, if they don't change things drastically we may be saying hello to President Romney come November. As you said, Team Obama hasn't exactly inspired much confidence with these results. This is the last chance to get a clue for the big shots currently running the party IMHO.

Howard Dean would be powerless in such a position.

I wouldn't be interested in just being the figurehead.

....I would expect, if us rank-and-file really wanted him back, he could name his own price with the Party establishment....I don't think the Good Doctor would take the job unless he had the power to do what needs to be done....

Who cares if we lose the first election as a new party - we're here to take what the Democrats have abandoned and make it our platform.

Mathematically speaking, running a third party in our system more often than not results in a spoiler effect. This is a phenomenon called Duverger's Law, and it's seen in systems that use "first member district plurality" voting systems.

India is another country that uses the same voting method; however, they are able to have multiple parties in their government because there are very strong regional parties. The Dems and Repubs in the United States are national parties. The United States never developed a tradition of having regional parties. However, it is possible to replace one of the two viable parties with a new party if the previous party is weakened enough, and this has happened in US history.

When the President of the United States asks you to serve, you don't reply by demanding a certain amount of autonomy.

The only way it would possibly work out is if the President decided that it was time to move the party in a different direction and he decided to give Dean the power to change things.

But the President isn't going to appoint a chairman who will potentially be at odds with the White House, no matter how much the rank-and-file would like him.

Bottom line: The party will continue to run the way it is running now until we get a new President.

THE decision-maker is the POTUS.

Getting out the vote is no small task.

Raising money the ethical way is no small task.

Howard Dean can energize the base.

That is no small task.

nt

I don't care about the scream, as I knew it was manufactured.

I was a Dean supporter, and I still love that man. He has what America needs - G-U-T-S. And that includes Alan Grayson.

Or alternatively, we can keep them and keep losing which is the choice of Big Money.

BTW - Check out the Democracy for America Group if you haven't - advancing the Howard Dean Dream: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1105

You never go backwards--you only go forwards. He's past that position at this stage in his 63rd year of life.

Donald Rumsfeld tried to repeat (he was SECDEF in the seventies and during BUSHCO), and look how well that worked out for him.

keep this in mind.

Dean was great, but what we're really looking at is the divide between vitality and retread crappiness.

The great organization that got built in the primaries in '08 survived in spite of, not because of the influx of DNC operatives. At least in the neck of the woods where I was stationed. All the DNC brought in were old strategies, a campaign HQ moved far away from center of our base, a bunch of unqualified folks who managed to get themselves fired en masse - TWICE - and all sorts of petty discord and bullshit.

We were a kick ass and take (many) names kind of operation prior to the merge, and I firmly believe it was the core strength of that original team that carried things forward post-merge and through November.

Why do you think we have the SHITTY Supreme Court that we have right now? Because we were saddled election after election with hacks following losers' playbooks. We'll never duplicate the holy war of '08, but the commitment to good, forward-thinking, rational, well-conceived strategy and well-crafted execution is something we best not be turning back the clock on.

Unfortunately, the current admin is probably not the old vital OFA, but something choked at all levels by DNC retreads who pushed their way in starting in June-July of '08 and then into the actual administration. These are just my guesses, though.

Dean devoted his waking hours to the campaign. DWS has another job.

Still I just can't see how making that move now would be a net plus. I also don't think pining away for the good doctor is healthy or productive.

either as remaining Chair, given his success in that role, or appointed to a cabinet position (I always thought he would have been excellent as Health and Human Services; the man IS a doctor for pete's sake!) I hope there is some position for him in Obama's second term.

I'm MUCH rather have Dean as White House Chief of Staff, but Chairman works, too...

As soon as possible. We need him.

than yes!